Delhi

North East

CC/55/2021

Sh. Satish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Aug 2023

ORDER

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.55/21

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Satish Kumar S/o Sh. Bhagwan Dass R/o X-9/3, Gali No. 9 Brahampuri, Delhi 110053	Complainant
	Versus
	Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Ltd.,Sahara India Bhawan 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj Lucknow 226024   Also at:- Sahara India Complex, C-2, C-3 Sector-11 Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar 201301   Also at:- B-Block, Pocket-3, First Floor Rajendra Santosi House, Near ICICI Bank Local Shopping Complex Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095 (through its Principal Officer)	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

23.03.2021 16.05.2023 02.08.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that Complainant had deposited Rs. 4,51,200/- vide receipt no. 071015607125 (SA Code 0/824742000910) on 31.08.12 with Opposite Party as an advance for Q Shop Goods (Exist) Plan H. The Complainant had also deposited Rs. 5,550/- against receipt no. 071015609135 dated 11.09.12 (SA Code 184000082/861032000642) to Opposite Party as an advance for the said plan.  The Complainant stated as per terms and conditions printed overleaf of the said receipt, the Complainant was to receive certain benefits from the Opposite Party. The Complainant stated that till date no benefit under the said plan has been provided by the Opposite Party to the Complainant and the amount of Rs. 4,56,750/- paid by Complainant was still lying with the Opposite Party. The Complainant had sent legal notice to Opposite Party dated 14.01.21 on the address of Opposite Party and notice sent on Lucknow and Dilshad Garden address has been served but the notice sent on Gautam Budh Nagar address has been received back with the postal remarks “refused”. However despite service of notice at Lucknow and Dilshad Garden address, the Opposite Party neither complied with the notice nor responded to the same. The Complainant stated that the Opposite Party neither provide any benefit of the said plan to Complainant nor had Opposite Party refunded or returned the amount of Rs. 4,56,750/- to Complainant. The Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.4,56,750/- i.e. the principal amount, Rs. 5,58,356/- i.e. interest  15 % from Sep 2012 to March 2021, Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 44,000/- on account of litigation expenses. Complainant also prayed to direct the Opposite Party to pay pende-lite and future interest 15 % p.a. till realization.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that Opposite Party byway of depositing amount from the Complainant opened facility for the depositors/ Complainant to buy the product of the company upon which Loyality Bonus Point was to be disbursed to the Complainant but during the period of said advance money deposited by the Complainant, no products have been purchased by the Complainant due to which the Complainant was deprived from getting benefits which was to received in terms of LBP (Loyality Bonus Point). Therefore the service which was offered to the Complainant to buy the product of the company in respect of depositing the advance money by way of which the opportunity provided to the Complainant to get the Loyality Bonus Point but the Complainant did not purchase any product from the Opposite Party result of which the Complainant is wholly responsible. The Complainant is not entitled to get any type of benefit from the Opposite Party except advance money.  
3. It is pertinent to mention here that the certificate issued by the company is not an FDR rather is a “Purchase Certificate” which authorizes the Complainant to purchase the products of the value of certificate. The Complainant is trying to mislead this Hon’ble Forum by characterizing the “Purchase Certificate" as FDR. It is wrong to say that the Complainant had deposited money in the shape of FDR. The Complainant is not a consumer of the Opposite Party. There is no provision of maturity under the terms and conditions of scheme. The depositing money as advance money with the Opposite Party is matters of record for which onus lie upon the Complainant to prove by of relevant documents before the Ld. Court. It is wrong to say that the Opposite Party assured the Complainant for releasing maturity. It is wrong to say that the Complainant requested number of times for payment. The Complainant is not entitled go get maturity amount, as claimed by him. There is no provision of payment of maturity or interest under the terms and conditions of scheme. The true fact is that the Complainant himself advanced money after understanding the terms and conditions of the scheme to purchase the products of the company not to get interest. It is pertinent to mention here that the Complainant is an educated person and has signed the documents after listening and understanding the contents of the same. The Opposite Party never promised the Complainant to pay any amount after completion of tenure i.e. 06 years. It is pertinent to mention here that any customer of Q-Shop scheme can purchase goods of the company which is also mentioned in the general terms and conditions of the Q-shop scheme. The Opposite Party never informed the Complainant that he will get maturity amount for advance amount. It is relevant to mention here that as per the provision of clause 2 of terms and conditions of scheme - no interest is payable over advance amount. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled only to get advance money as per terms and conditions of the said scheme.
4. The Opposite Party never refused to the Complainant for making payment as per terms and conditions but real fact is that the Complainant was demanding interest over the advance amount which is not mentioned in the said scheme for which the Complainant is wholly responsible. The statement given by the Complainant is absolutely false and baseless, hence vehemently denied.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

5. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

6. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

 

 

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties. We have also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that he had deposited Rs. 4,51,200/- on 31.08.12 and Rs. 5,550/- on 11.09.12 to Opposite Party as advance for Q Shop Goods (Exist) Plan H, as per terms and conditions of the plan, the Complainant was to receive certain benefits from the Opposite Party.  It is stated by Complainant that till date no benefit under the said plan has been provided by the Opposite Party to the Complainant and the amount of Rs. 4,56,750/-( in total) paid by Complainant was still lying with the Opposite Party. It is further stated by the Complainant that Opposite Party neither provide any benefit of the said plan to Complainant nor had refunded or returned the said amount to Complainant. Hence, there is deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party.
8. The case of the Opposite Party is that it is admitted that Complainant had deposited Rs. 4,56,750/-(in total) with them and as per the plan Opposite Party opened facility for the depositors/ Complainant to buy the product of the company upon which Loyality Bonus Point was to be disbursed to the Complainant but during the period of said advance money deposited by the Complainant, no products have been purchased by the Complainant due to which the Complainant was deprived from getting benefits which was to be received in terms of LBP (Loyality Bonus Point).  It is further submitted by the Opposite Party that the certificate issued by the company is not an FDR but a purchase certificate which authorized the Complainant to purchase the product of the value of the certificate. There is no provision of maturity under the terms and conditions of the plan. It is wrong to say that Opposite Party is assured the Complainant for releasing maturity and there is no provision of any interest payable under the terms and conditions of the scheme. Hence, the Complainant is entitled to get only advance money paid by him as per terms and conditions of the said scheme. Opposite Party never refused to the Complainant for making payment as per terms and conditions of the plan.
9. In the present case, it is admitted by the Opposite Party that they are received Rs. 4,56,750/( in total) from the Complainant and they ready to pay the amount to the Complainant but they neither paid nor offered the amount paid by Complainant to the Complainant during the proceedings of this matter. It is also clear from the document provided by the Complainant that money deposited by the Complainant was not an FDR and there was no maturity date mentioned on the said certificate.
10. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. Opposite Party is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 4,56,750/- to the Complainant with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation cost along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
11.  Order announced on 02.08.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba,		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)